Ouch!That’s gonna hurt their smirking internationalist aspirations. Or is it?
Before I go into my own analysis of this phenomenon, I’d like to examine how our leading class responds to the situation that confronts them.

Katinka Barysch is the director of political relations at Allianz and formerly the director of the Centre for European Reform think-tank in London. A radical proponent of both diversity and equality across European societies, she lends her ambiguously inflected occidental voice to virtually any soundbite in support of Britain’s continued membership of the EU.

Like many Eurocrats who fight to keep Britain waiting their table, Katinka also appears to have a particular vendetta against Anglo-Saxon cultures. This shouldn’t surprise anyone: the British way of life gets closer than almost any in Europe (bar Switzerland – which we’ll come to), at enabling both diversity and prosperity. Complaining about the gap seems… I don’t know… Is someone a bit jealous, Katinka? Would someone rather that Anglo-Saxon success always came with a little European flag over it? Do you think maybe the Anglo-Saxons and their naughty little legal systems are a bit better than the Napoleonic code and whatever they flash-fried at Maastricht and Lisbon?

Would someone rather that the poor were poorer provided that the rich were less rich?

As the European societies come under strain Eurocrats remain madly jealous of the Anglo-Saxon cultures because they refuse to believe that central management is not needed to promote the conflicted agendas of diversity and prosperity. Just listen to the sneering attitude of Guy, ‘you can’t expect the citizens to campaign for closer integration when there are no politicians promoting the idea. After all, politicians create public opinion’ Verhofstadt.

Verhofstadt is the ex-Prime Minister of the extremely fragmented, trilingual Kingdom of Belgium and now leads the Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament, with realistic aspirations to becoming a Commissioner. His diatribe against ‘Her Majesty’s Government,’ came at a time when the EU was receiving a 74% increase in contributions from the UK and still demanding more.

It’s like listening to the local drunk complaining that the village squire is a show-off because he paid to fix the church roof. The mistake the UK makes is that it takes pity and continues to throw him beer-money.

Another diversity fanatic, Stefanie von Berg – spokesperson for social inclusion in the Hannover City assembly – rather charmingly suggested that it is a good thing that immigration will drive the native population of that city into a minority in 20 or 30 years’ time.

The comment, according to her German Wikipedia page, caused ‘eine shitstorm‘ (well, at least we know that the faceless masses commenting on German internet forums are beginning to see the danger she represents).

Now, firstly, I have no opinion about either diversity or the wealth gap per se. My life is spread out over the continent and I’m also a part of the wealthy 1% described by Barysch. However I do have an interest in the general welfare of the 99% (I’m actually friends with some of them), and I can’t help but notice that Euro-agitprop is doing the Eurocrats more favours than the people whose interests they claim to represent. As long as Eurocrats can persuade people that there is something wrong with the gap, and right with the diversity they promote, they can continue to gather the fruits of public goodwill and keep the 99% paying their bills. The two agendas feed off one another, creating the ‘problems’ so that the white knights of Brussels can sell the solution. Until the general population realise this, they will continue to pay their deluded leaders to chase their own tails and ‘worsening’ the two ‘problems’ they claim to be fighting.

Except that they’re not worsening the problem for themselves because they have kept themselves culturally relevant, employed, and respected among their own synthetic social ‘in group.’

And here we get to the core of what motivates the Eurocrat: they have no concept of loyalty to any particular cultural group, because they were either born misfits (every one of the EU’s founding fathers hailed from a region of indeterminate national allegiance), or made a vainglorious decision to eschew the ‘provincialism’ of any particular heritage in an attempt to promote themselves into the circles of a new cosmopolitan elite.

In their effort to remain relevant in their antisocial wilderness, they must focus their appeal on common social concerns (or ‘promoted public opinion’), across several different cultures – which leaves them with no foothold except the low common denominators of human limbic responses: jealousy, fear, contempt for the most visible political leaders and, at best perhaps, a vague sense of brotherly goodwill which exists between Christian cultures. It echoes the type of maternal sadism in which a single mother instils distrust of the father in her children so that they will refer to her for support; attempting to provoke outrage in order to place themselves at the centre of a nexus uniting discontented factions with ‘cross-cutting issues’ which ‘transcend cultures’ by ‘breaking down boundaries’ and ‘building bridges, not walls’ etc etc.

Dig a little into the do-gooder guru psyche of the EU’s proponents and you’ll typically find an infantile struggle either to reclaim or reject a Haimat – a psychological homeland – and using the Euro-state accordingly as a surrogate or lifeboat.

Having replaced their culture, families, in-group loyalties and often their religions with the state; having no in-group society or culture to fall back on, the people refuse to see the way civil societies do work and compensate by seeking office in order to coerce society according to their perception of how things should work. Politics knows no fury like a nationalist scorned. If they had the opportunity, they would continue to fight for the EU to every nation’s last drop of blood.

The most dangerous people to every social order are those who have nothing to lose from its collapse.

The control-freakery which drives the EU is derived from the vengeance of a bitterati who were too incompetent, idealistic, bossy or unattractive to win social inclusion and social investment from society – and resort to attempts to overturn the natural laws that govern human behaviour to suit themselves. The principle is: ‘if I can’t have it, no one can have it!’

In accordance with my theory about the Eurocrats’ propensity to shunt natural law, I detect more than a whiff of feminism from these people. ‘Liebe Hamburgerinnen und Hamburger,’ starts von Berg’s homepage, Verhofstadt was a staunch and vocal supporter of the daft 50/50 campaign in the run up to the 2012 Euro elections and Barysch rattles on about the ‘problem’ of women not occupying enough senior management places in companies.

Nature’s solution to most of feminism’s ‘issues,’ of course, is traditional marriage. Marriage makes men poorer, women richer, costs the rest of society nothing and is of mutual benefit to the couple involved and their children. Sorry, Eurocrats – gap filled without your involvement – and that is exactly the problem: they need civil institutions not to work so that they can offer politicisation of free markets and natural law, allowing themselves the state institutions to remain relevant.

Of the top 250 German Mittelstand companies, 211 have no women in top management. By 2017 this is supposed to change. #handelsblatt

The EU’s quid-pro-quo for traditional marriage is diversity, socialism and immigration. These ends demand a means for the socially dispossessed to arrange immediate resources without a market demand and promote the kind of danger which is of benefit to anyone who happens to be the central authority which might quell civil discontent.

So, Will We Accept Higher Regulation or Higher Inequality?

The Ethnic Fractionalisation index of a country is (basically), the likelihood that two randomly selected individuals from that nation are going to be from different ethnic, religious, or linguistic backgrounds, expressed as a number between 0 (completely homogenous) and 1 (completely diverse). It is an inexact science, but here are all the world’s national indexes listed.

At the time the data was collated (2003), no European country had an ethnic fractionalisation index above 0.6 (Latvia being the highest at 0.585 – presumably because of Russophone population there). Above this level lie all the countries which are in serious trouble.

The prosperous European nations are in the most homogenous part of the list, along with Japan and South Korea (North Korea – by the way – seems to be the stark exception to the trends I am describing. Having the lowest ethnic fractionalisation index on Earth – at 0.002 – it should by virtue of its demographics be immensely prosperous).

You really don’t want to be living anywhere with an ethnic fractionalisation index above 0.6 – that’s one third of the world’s nations. Some reasonably prosperous and peaceful countries come close to this (Switzerland, the UK, Belgium, Israel, China, the former Yugoslavia), but it’s fairly easy to see that the internal divisions are coped with either by

devolving administration to the regions (effectively creating a group of smaller-societies which can manage themselves according to their specific in-group precepts), or

Employing a slightly menacing militia.

Modern Europe is reaching a point of diversity at which it is now dangerous for some European societies (particularly those which have followed the ideologies of people like Guy and Katinka), to de-regulate.

I’m told that a large part of Brussels – specifically the diverse part, Molenbeek, is now under military control because political efforts at encouraging diversity have made the area too dangerous for civilian police to handle.

The only places where there is deep state intervention and high prosperity are in places like Austria – where resources are managed according to the common will of a very homogenous population. So we can see an example of how a homogenous society will willingly permit a big state in a small area – but, I re-emphasise, these administrations have what the EU will never have: a democratic mandate.

It is my perception that Europe-wide militarisation is simply too contentious to work in the era of mass-communications, so EU is now being forced to devolve power back to the nations as the only affordable way to prevent a civil upheaval. It will be up to those countries which have now crossed the danger-threshold of diversity to do their own dirty-work in putting down civil unrest.

Last year, Eurocrats and their client press were outraged when the Hungary erected border fences to keep out migrants – suggesting the move was immoral and even illegal. Illegal or not – they no longer dare complain as Austria does the same. Soon it will be France, Denmark, Slovakia and Norway. Hungary were met with no opposition when they announced that their defence was to extend across their border with Romania last week.

What a difference makes a year.

Rather than continuing to compromise to the EU’s last breath, bowing to their inferior authority and allowing them the credit for successes that we pay for – Britain could improve Europe by setting an example of the British structure from outside the European structure once more.

Post navigation

5 comments

Are there not two separate issues here with diversity: cultural and ethic? Cultural diversity can be invented on a whim. Cue N Korea.

When the USA invited massive immigration from about 1880, there was great effort to bring the new-comers into the club through language and common cultural pursuits. –They consciously abandoned cricket and soccer (both British) for baseball and American football. But visually obvious ethic division was inherited from the trauma of slavery. This has been the hardest wound to heal. It has taken a non-slave-stock half-cast to breech the Oval Office defences for African Americans.

Yes – and like the Koreas, Rwanda is internally stable. I wouldn’t anticipate a bigger bang than the Germanys when Korea re-unites, either. I imagine that a reason for Rwanda’s low ranking on the diversity index now is due to one genetic group slaughtering all but a few hundred thousand of the other within the country. Hutus and Tutsis may have shared a language, but were genetically distinct groups (Africa has vastly more genetic diversity per sq. mile than any other continent, btw). As the indicators cited in the article above would predict, when one group wiped out all but a few hundred thousand of the other, it precipitated a more homogenous internal society and Rwanda has enjoyed peace and prosperity ever since (that’s an observation based on knowable information – not an promotion of genocide).

Did you mean to say ‘ethic’ or ‘ethnic?’ Cultural diversity can be created on a whim, of course, and often is – as Europe is discovering (to its considerable cost).
Growing a new culture from scratch takes a few (thousand) years longer. I’m no expert on North America – but I would assume that the diversity of the Midwest frontier came a certain social cost to the natives of that that continent – regardless of what type of field games the settlers decided to bring onto their ethnic and cultural ‘blank canvas.’ Even now, the US administration appears quite heavily devolved to cope with its internal diversity ‘problem.’ By the way – the stability and prosperity of a society does not necessarily mean that it doesn’t stand in constant threat of war. I have a post coming up about the cultural strength of old Europe and its client state of readiness for warfare. Incorporating this relationship into the American national consciousness will be one of their continent’s growing pains and – for those in Europe who may have forgotten it – theirs too.